You are here

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Chancellor Phyllis Wise faces allegations of unethical behavior dating back two decades. (Ronald Woan/Flickr)

Chancellor Phyllis Wise, the top administrator who fired Steven Salaita from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign after complaints from pro-Israel donors, is facing allegations from academic peers of unethical conduct that may stretch back two decades.

It occurs when an author publishes the same research or the same or substantially similar paper in multiple venues without acknowledging the fact, in effect passing off the old research as something new.

Wise has already publicly acknowledged one case and The Electronic Intifada has requested comment from her regarding the other allegations reported in this post. No response has been received from Wise or the University of Illinois.

In one instance, research for which Wise was not the lead investigator was apparently republished in another journal with her as the lead author and the names of some co-authors removed.

As The Electronic Intifada has previously reported, there is already reasonable suspicion that Wise may have unlawfully disposed of public documents that could shed light on pro-Israel donor influence over her decision to fire Salaita.

The “missing” document and contradictory statements on the Salaita case by the university’s president Robert Easter have fed widespread doubts about the university administration’s honesty and transparency.

The allegations of unethical academic behavior will cast further doubt on the integrity of Wise’s statements regarding Salaita and are likely to increase the pressure on the beleageured chancellor.

More than a dozen university departments have already passed votes of no confidence in Wise over her handling of the Salaita appointment.

Wise “corrects serious errors”

The Chronicle of Higher Educationreported Friday that Wise has made “a significant correction to a paper, published in 2006, that presents non-original work as original.”

According to a correction in the journal Neuroscience, Ms. Wise’s paper contained “a number of serious errors” and was “written in a way that misleads the readers to think that it is an original article.” The article, “Estrogen Therapy: Does It Help or Hurt the Adult and Aging Brain? Insights Derived From Animal Models,” is a review of a 2001 article co-written by Ms. Wise. But the previous article receives no attribution.

Several of Wise’s questionable articles involve studies on the effectiveness of the hormone therapy estradiol, which is sold under various brand names.

Wise told Retraction Watch “she agrees with the correction” to her 2006 paper and that “there are no plans to correct any other papers.”

But she may have to revise that position based on additional allegations that are surfacing.

More cases emerging

A September posting on the website PubPeer appears to have uncovered another egregious case dating back twenty years.

PubPeer describes itself as an “online community” that reviews scientific research after its publication.

It says it is maintained by a “diverse team of early-stage scientists in collaboration with programmers who have collectively decided to remain anonymous in order to avoid personalizing the website, and to avoid circumstances in which involvement with the site might produce negative effects on their scientific careers.”

“Neither paper cites the other and they have different coauthors, although they share the same first author. One claims to be the Nathan Shock Memorial Lecture delivered by the first author in 1991, while the other does not,” PubPeer states.

PubPeer states: “Again, this paper has different coauthors and the same first author. Ninety-nine percent of the text of both later papers appeared previously in this paper, which is cited in neither.”

It also notes that the same figures have appeared, but with slightly different labeling.

“Is such triplicate publication with errors remotely acceptable in this area of science?” the post asks.

Federal grants

Both the Neuroscience and Biology of Reproduction articles say that they were supported by grants from the Glenn Foundation and from the US government’s National Institutes of Health (NIH). They both list one NIH grant number in common.

The National Center for Biotechnology Information, part of the NIH, recently published a paper on its website on “unethical publishing behavior,” which includes precisely the kind of duplicate publishing in which Wise is accused of habitually engaging.

The paper states that “studies have suggested that retractions for plagiarism and duplicate publication have been increasing in recent years.”

Accountability

Given that Wise has repeatedly cited her paramount concern for the integrity of the University of Illinois in her decision to fire Salaita, she owes the citizens of Illinois and the university community an immediate, full and frank response to these allegations.

Her institution’s and discipline’s ethical bodies should immediately examine her full record of publications to determine whether these allegations are substantiated and whether there is more evidence of misconduct.

Many of those commenting on the PubPeer and Retraction Watch postings have noted that a student would be subject to severe sanctions, if not expulsion, for these kinds of offenses.

Separately, The Electronic Intifada is still awaiting a response from the office of the Illinois Attorney General to its request for a review of the University of Illinois’ claim that a document on Salaita handed to Wise by a pro-Israel donor cannot be located.

Comments

One particularly damning fact is that when she reused pictures and illustrations from the previous publications, she labeled them as "source unknown". She knew republishing was wrong and she took deliberate steps to conceal it

This is just further evidence of her unsuitability to head a university in the United States. She lacks the required honesty and ethical components of character to be the leader of an academic institution.

Who will educate the educators? Hats off to Ali Abunimah for doing the research that the University of Illinois evidently didn't do when appointing her. Serial self-plagiarism is a curse. If it emerges that she is also the beneficiary of grants from pharmaceutical companies involved--was there any declaration of a FCOI (Financial Conflict of Interest) in the essays, as is increasingly the practice in scholarly publication?--then the story gets exponentially bigger.